India’s defence spending may be guided by its own threat perception, but whatever India ‘does’ or ‘does not’ do — has serious bearing on Pakistan’s security perception, which is further exacerbated by the level of mistrust between the two neighbours. Pakistan, therefore, finds it appropriate that instead of engaging in a prohibitive arms competition with India, it should de-hyphenate its conventional equation vis-a-vis India and increase its reliance on nuclear deterrence.
The NCA in September reiterated that as a responsible nuclear weapon state, Pakistan would continue to maintain the policy of Credible Minimum Deterrence (CMD), without entering into an arms race with any other country. The ‘minimum’, however, has not been quantified and is a not a static concept. Statements made by senior Pakistani decision-makers on several occasions indicate that Pakistan’s ‘minimum’ posture would mainly be guided by the developments at the regional level that could affect Pakistan’s security perception.
The NCA, in its declaration, also endorsed the concept of ‘full spectrum deterrence’, which apparently is aimed at maintaining appropriate response options to cater for various contingencies. The ‘full spectrum’ is not a ‘quantitative’ idiom, but a ‘qualitative’ response to new war fighting concepts of ‘Cold Start’ and Pro Active Operations (PAO), introduced by India. Full spectrum offers a range of options to the decision-makers.
The range of options developed by Pakistan is mainly intended to enhance the credibility of its nuclear deterrence. In sum, the intended message by the NCA could be that despite growing asymmetry and the introduction of PAO doctrine by India, there is no space for a military conflict. It has also been emphasised on several occasions by the Pakistani officials that ‘full spectrum deterrence’ is not a war fighting doctrine, but essentially, a war prevention strategy. Nuclear weapons would remain an instrument of deterrence.
The nuclearisation of South Asia has made war an unthinkable option. In the presence of nuclear weapons, military victory has become impossible; political victory, however, would depend on the threat of war (deterrence). As long as there is no sincere progress towards the resolution of major outstanding disputes, nuclear weapons would continue to play the central role in Pakistan’s strategic calculus to deny India military as well as political victory.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 7th, 2013.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (13)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
It was really informative. Thumbs up!
Some of the comments are surprisingly opposite to the existing reality. Their views are depicting that huge difference in defense budget, proactive strategies,continuous plus rapid developments in weapon system and nuclear fissile material should not be a point of concern for a neighboring country. In fact it is an inhabitant right of a state to restore its survivalability and ensure security measures against overwhelming perceived threats. Thus the security from all kind of conventional,political and nuclear threats is utmost prerequisite for Pakistan.The well stated points by the author reassure Pakistan's averseness to arms race and reliance on assured nuclear deterrence.
The situation is amusing but also sad. Any number of conventional or unconventional weapons cannot overcome insecurity. The situation can be describes thus --- a guys house is set on fire by family members and is being burnt down but he assures his family all is fine by ordering a few more Kalashnikov's(when Fire Brigade is needed) on his mobile, clueless to the fact that arsonists are residents and the move will only endanger him further, all the while pointing to the neighbor as his enemy regardless. The line separating illusion from delusion is very fine.
South Asia enjoys an interesting interplay of nuclear and conventional military arsenals by its two major historic arch rivals Pakistan and India. The margin which exists between the defence spending’s of two countries created a vacuum of security dilemma and invokes threat perception. This is not a point to be astonished if one state continues with full spectrum doctrine to cater all kinds of threats from its next door neighbour. Certainly it is the inherent right of a state to take every measure in order to retain sovereignty and survivability. India bends on regular basis to boom its warfare credentials either conventional or nuclear. This is a very point which made Pakistan to counter this imbalance by maintain its defence posture not stimulating any kind of arms race. War is a costly business but India expansionist moves directly towards a different story of creating a threatening situation in the region. Pakistan is simply goes in the direction of qualitative arrangements to ensure its security at the full spectrum level in front of a neighbour of an offensive approach.
Any nuclear conflict between Pakistan and India will lead to the ultimate destruction on both sides. But irrespective of this very fact, India is massively spending in military buildup. In order to maintain credible minimum deterrence, Pakistan has to spend in nuclear developments that ensures Pakistan's survival.
The author has articulated the facts and information very accurately. Pakistan has always been proved to be a responsible state in regards to its nuclear weapon program. Fear of encirclement and credible deterrence along with its regional stability are the key issues in pakistan's security environment.it feels caught between an unstable Afghanistan and a rising, modernizing India supported by the U.S. With its Indian neighbor in particular, Pakistan experiences significant asymmetries, in terms of size, population, and policy objectives. While India’s nuclear program is driven by a desire for great-power status and with the support of the U.S., which has attempted to build India up as a counter-weight to China in the region, Pakistan’s nuclear investments are security-driven in an attempt to maintain deterrence with its neighbors. In short Paistan should go for maximum deterrent options to keep away the external aggressions and to defend itself from all side.
@faizaan, you can imagine what you like. India never started a war with Pakistan, even when there were no nukes, this is something Pakistani generals have underlined many times besides many civilian strategic commentators of that time. As far as nukes are concerned, I am sure you remember 1999 and who ran to US for help and whose pants were getting wet. You would also recall that no aircraft of PAF took off. While talking of defence budget of India, one should also compare size of India and Pakistan and the area to be defended. I tend to agree with Faraz that these nomenclatures are basically to keep civilians confused when it comes to doctrines. There was no threat to Pakistan from India, there is none and won't be. But yes, there have been numerous occasions of initiating interference from Pakistani side and in reaction there have been reactions from this side too. One should learn to put things in chronological order and see where the root lies when it comes to conflict situation.
Our Nuclear Arsenal has insured that India will never be able to repeat 1971, or dare crossing the international boundary. Each one of these had their own demons, but we owe a gratitude for this Nuclear Program), to Zulfiqar Bhutto, Zia-ul-Haq, Ghulam Ishaq Khan and AQ Khan..and hundreds of scientists working for the homeland..
India had over 1400 and Pakistan over 800 tanks during 1971 war, but not a single armored corps. Both armies attached small units of armor with the infantry, holding 1-2 armor divisions in reserve! A general from the second world war would have died laughing at such comical armored doctrine and tactics. Both armies simply didn't have the ability to conduct corps level mobile operations. Indo Pak armies lack the intellectual rigor to formulate new doctrines. Imaginary cold start and imaginary counter cold start doctrines are just gimmicks to fool the civilians who have no knowledge of warfare.
@Author:
Thank you. It was very informative.